The following was recently posted by me to the Yahoo groups wacco-talk and WaccoTalk as a response to a posting on wacco-bb from someone named Joel. Barry suggested that I also post it here. Since I don't have Joel's permission to repost his original posting here, I'm not including it here, but you can pretty much infer his basic positon from my response below:

Subject: [WaccoTalk] Re: [wacco-bb] May 1-support immigrant rights-BUY NOTHING DAY!!
*
Joel
****It sounds like you’re coming from the assumption that the government of the U.S.A. legitimately owns the part of the continent within its borders, and thus has the right to exclude so-called “illegal aliens”. *Are you willing to engage in some critical thinking about that assumption?

****Briefly, here’s my case:

****1. *I’m reasoning from the moral precept called the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you). *One advantage of this is that nearly everyone claims to believe in the Golden Rule, so it is an excellent basis for reasoning together. *Anyone who claims to believe in any of the major religions is implying that they accept the Golden Rule, as it’s not just a tenet of these religions, it’s explicitly one of their main tenets. *Even most of us who aren’t religious believe in it. *How about you, Joel? *Do you accept the Golden Rule as the basis for moral reasoning? *I mean really, consistently accept it, rather than just giving lip service as so many do?

****2. *If we accept the Golden Rule, various corollaries of that rule follow logically. *One such corollary is “Thou shalt not steal”. *Are you still with me?

****3. *If we agree that stealing is wrong, can we also agree on the logical implication that if we steal something, it’s not really ours? *If I steal your car, it’s not really mine, even if I succeed in keeping it for the rest of my life. *If I bequeath it to my kids, it’s not really theirs either, because it’s stolen. *You’re still the real owner, even if you’re never able to get it back from me. *Still with me?

****4. *Is there any reason that principle shouldn’t apply to continents as readily as it does to cars? *If I steal your continent, it’s not really mine; it still belongs to you (and, generations later, to your progeny) even if you lack the power to take it back (might makes right only to sociopaths).

****5. *If the stolen continent isn’t really mine, any government I set up to govern it is an illegitimate entity with zero moral authority, and any borders it draws and tries to control are similarly illegitimate. *For “our” illegitimate government, which owes its very existence to the theft of this continent and the accompanying genocide, to draw lines on this stolen continent and prevent the brown folks who are the real owners from crossing those lines, is ludicrous, irrational, immoral, and a huge violation of the Golden Rule we say we believe in.
****
****6. *Keep in mind that white folks like me, and presumably you, are descended from illegal aliens—or do you think it was legal according to the laws of the “Indian” nations for white people to come from across the sea, steal the land, and slaughter anyone who resisted? *I’d love to hear you try to make a case for accepting all of us white illegal aliens while rejecting the brown ones who are descended from this continent’s original owners. *If the Indians had enforced a strict immigration policy in 1492, we wouldn’t have these problems now, would we, Joel?

****7. *There’s also a behavioral argument that can be made here, to wit: *The behaviorists tell us (correctly) that behaviors which are rewarded will tend to continue and increase, while those that are punished will tend to decrease. *If we treat governments that are based on the horrors of invasion and genocide with respect, if we treat them as legitimate, we reinforce the most brutal behaviors imaginable. *If we want imperialism, racism and genocide to decrease, it’s incumbent upon us to withhold legitimation from governments based on these brutalities.

****Now Joel, if you’re a reasonable person, you will respond in one of two ways. *You’ll either articulate a reasoned rebuttal to my argument, specifying any fallacious reasoning that renders my argument invalid (NOT just asserting that I’m wrong), or you’ll accept my conclusion and change your position on this issue. *I’m challenging you to be reasonable and open-minded on this highly emotional issue. *Are you up to the challenge?

********************Looking forward to hearing from you;
************************************************Dixon